D&D 5E Wish and the requirement removal

[Maxperson]

ANY means ANY. You didn't say that ANY requirements on the target are removed EXCEPT ones you think are immature (and where is that in RAW?). Also, "you the caster don't need to meet the requirement of an object having to fit in that cube" is really bizarre, tortured verbal construction. If you have to resort to such clumsy phrasing to explain why "You don't have to meet the requirements" means "and neither does your target," maybe you're just misreading the spell.

I think what you are missing is just because a requirement is waived, doesn't mean that you can just insert any number you feel like or do anything you want.

You aren't required to fit the object into a 10 foot square. You are required to keep it within the bounds of a 9th level spell, as that is not required of the caster, but of the player and game. A 9th level spell can only do so much. Can it move a 20 foot tree? Yes. Can it move the world? No.

 

[fearsomepirate]

They are and it is. And it's invalid because it's taking the rules to an absurd extreme. Do that and you've lost. Give me a reasonable example and we can discuss.

Instead of me trying to suss out what you think the limitations are, why don't you just tell me?

Because at this point, the tortured English you have to put together to explain why defining a valid target is actually defining a valid caster has solidly convinced me that no, "You don’t need to meet any requirements in that spell " doesn't mean, "Neither you nor your target need to meet any requirements in that spell," and if they'd meant the latter, they would have said so.

 

[MarkB]

I think what you are missing is just because a requirement is waived, doesn't mean that you can just insert any number you feel like or do anything you want.

You aren't required to fit the object into a 10 foot square. You are required to keep it within the bounds of a 9th level spell, as that is not required of the caster, but of the player and game. A 9th level spell can only do so much. Can it move a 20 foot tree? Yes. Can it move the world? No.

So basically, your players have to guess what you consider to be 'reasonable' for a 9th-level spell on any particular occasion, and if they guess wrong, the spell is wasted. Where exactly on the tree-to-moon scale do you place your arbitrary limit of "what a 9th-level spell can do"? Can I drop a cottage on the BBEG? A mansion? A cathedral? A gazebo?

 

[fearsomepirate]

You aren't required to fit the object into a 10 foot square.

No, a larger object simply isn't a valid target for the spell.

You are required to keep it within the bounds of a 9th level spell, as that is not required of the caster, but of the player and game.

There's no such rule. To avoid the 33% chance of permanently losing Wish, you must duplicate a 1st-8th level spell, modulo waiving any requirements on the caster. There is nothing in there about general bounds of power. The requirements are waived, full stop, not "waived within the bounds of a 9th level spell." The reason you can cast Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion in the middle of a battlefield is because of the requirement waiver, not because of any vague power bounds.

You've had to introduce a new rule about staying inside of some kind of power bound because you've expanded the waiver to the target and, taken literally, that's absurd. Is targeting an invisible creature with Disintegrate within the bound? What if he's 100 feet away? 1000 feet? 1000 miles? On the Ethereal Plane? What about resurrecting someone who's been dead 10,000 years, is locked in an eternal cage of demon bones, and likes it that way?

By taking an extremely expansive reading of the waiver, you've had to create a new, vague rule with case-by-case enforcement that no two DMs will run the same way. By contrast, with my reading (the waiver applies to the caster, not the targets), it's straightforward. The valid target is in the spell description, no ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

They are and it is. And it's invalid because it's taking the rules to an absurd extreme. Do that and you've lost. Give me a reasonable example and we can discuss.

Reduction ad absurdum is a valid argument. Dismissing it because it happens to show that your argument can be absurd and you wouldn't be absurd is special pleading.

 

[Asisreo]

No, a larger object simply isn't a valid target for the spell.



There's no such rule. To avoid the 33% chance of permanently losing Wish, you must duplicate a 1st-8th level spell, modulo waiving any requirements on the caster. There is nothing in there about general bounds of power. The requirements are waived, full stop, not "waived within the bounds of a 9th level spell." The reason you can cast Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion in the middle of a battlefield is because of the requirement waiver, not because of any vague power bounds.

You've had to introduce a new rule about staying inside of some kind of power bound because you've expanded the waiver to the target and, taken literally, that's absurd. Is targeting an invisible creature with Disintegrate within the bound? What if he's 100 feet away? 1000 feet? 1000 miles? On the Ethereal Plane? What about resurrecting someone who's been dead 10,000 years, is locked in an eternal cage of demon bones, and likes it that way?

By taking an extremely expansive reading of the waiver, you've had to create a new, vague rule with case-by-case enforcement that no two DMs will run the same way. By contrast, with my reading (the waiver applies to the caster, not the targets), it's straightforward. The valid target is in the spell description, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I will add: I've yet to find anything in this thread particularly too absurd. I mean, don't get me wrong—Sequestering the whole Abyss, Teleporting to the moon, having that moon come crashing down, all because of a vague rule—these all sound insane. And yet, I believe a setting should have these things taken to account. At tier 4, you can be fighting several demon lords at once depending on how you do about it. You're already exceptionally ridiculous. Pantheons should be closely monitoring your actions, demons should be offering you whole demiplane kingdoms for your allegiance, Fey should look to you for wisdom and lower level adventurers should be begging for your patronage.

If a player would make one of these solid cases for bypassing requirements, I might let the spell run it's course. Show players what happens when you do something so bold as to attack a demon lord directly for no reason other than "I don't like the cut of his gib!" On the other hand, sometimes I have a high fantasy-high magic story to tell and I'd hope the players would agree to an unwritten social contract that they'd play the game as it should be, at the expense of some player agency.

I honestly don't know the designer's intent. I don't think I'll pretend like I do. I mean, apparently their intent was that Leomund's Tiny Hut is an indestructible bubble that lasts concentrationless for 8 hours–becoming a stronger spell than thjngs like "Wall of Force" or "Forcecage." It wouldn't surprise me that the designers intended this spell to be so agressively broken that it should've just been an 11th level spell.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I honestly don't know the designer's intent. I don't think I'll pretend like I do. I mean, apparently their intent was that Leomund's Tiny Hut is an indestructible bubble that lasts concentrationless for 8 hours–becoming a stronger spell than thjngs like "Wall of Force" or "Forcecage." It wouldn't surprise me that the designers intended this spell to be so agressively broken that it should've just been an 11th level spell.

If you give it consideration, I think you might come to the conclusion that Leomund's Tiny Hut is primarily intended to allow for safe resting. The fact that it can be abused as a potential combat spell is an unintended consequence of its primary use.

Similarly, I think if you give Wish consideration you'll recognize that there are at least two ways of interpreting it. One of those maintains it within the confines of the 9th level spell that it is classified as, and another which doesn't. The other allows it to achieve things that are arguably beyond the scope of most deities. IMO, one of these interpretations is reasonable. As far as I am concerned, the other is, at best, rules lawyering.

 

[Asisreo]

If you give it consideration, I think you might come to the conclusion that Leomund's Tiny Hut is primarily intended to allow for safe resting. The fact that it can be abused as a potential combat spell is an unintended consequence of its primary use.

Similarly, I think if you give Wish consideration you'll recognize that there are at least two ways of interpreting it. One of those maintains it within the confines of the 9th level spell that it is classified as, and another which doesn't. The other allows it to achieve things that are arguably beyond the scope of most deities. IMO, one of these interpretations is reasonable. As far as I am concerned, the other is, at best, rules lawyering.

What exactly is "Within the power of a 9th level spell?" Wish is considered to be The spell. Fireball was designed to be completely broken compared to all other similar spells of that level. Now, it's possible that we're establishing a false upper-bound to something. We can't say that it should be weaker because other 9th level spells are weaker, other 9th level spells are supposed to be weaker in comparison.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What exactly is "Within the power of a 9th level spell?" Wish is considered to be The spell. Fireball was designed to be completely broken compared to all other similar spells of that level. Now, it's possible that we're establishing a false upper-bound to something. We can't say that it should be weaker because other 9th level spells are weaker, other 9th level spells are supposed to be weaker in comparison.

Wish is already the spell. It can accomplish nearly anything at a risk. It can also duplicate any spell of 8th level or lower with no risk. It doesn't need to also have "requirements" interpreted in the broadest sense possible. A sense which is obviously broken and requires hard DM restriction based on multiple examples that I and others have provided in this thread.

Obviously do whatever you want in your own campaign, but caveat emptor.

 

[Maxperson]

All I know is that if someone wanted to use Wish to teleport a 20 foot long tree trunk by duplicating an 8th level spell or under, I'm not going to make him roll to forever lose the spell or be weakened. If you guys want to gimp your players like that, feel free.